DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

It would be nice to know what the speed actually is through those maneuvers. Also, I wish there wasn't a cut right in the middle of that crash-back. But I suspect that's deliberate.
 
.

It's never going to be stealthy with music that loud blaring out all the time. ;D

Does anyone know if she's encountered any heavy weather yet ?
 
phil gollin said:
.

It's never going to be stealthy with music that loud blaring out all the time. ;D

Does anyone know if she's encountered any heavy weather yet ?
Click to expand...

She apparently had some heavy weather exposure in the April Bravo trials. Full heavy weather trials aren't scheduled until next year.
 
H/t 2805662 over at Tanknet: http://usszumwalt.org/commissioning-2016/
 
US Navy said:
USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) commissioning
BALTIMORE, MD (Sept. 15, 2016) The US Navy’s newest and most technologically advanced surface ship, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) is commissioned in Baltimore. It is the first surface combatant to introduce the Integrated Fight Through Power (IFTP) system for power distribution with increased automation, quality, reliability and survivability. The ship also employs an innovative and highly survivable Integrated Power System (IPS) with unique architectural capabilities, including the provision of power to propulsion, ship’s service and combat systems. In addition to the ship’s stealth and advanced Vertical Launch System, DDG 1000 has two medium-range MK46, 30mm Close-in Gun Systems that provide robust rapid fire capability against hostile surface targets approaching the ship. (U.S. Navy video/Released)
Click to expand...
Video (1h 51min 45s long):
https://youtu.be/aRZhTy1j2bc
Code: 
https://youtu.be/aRZhTy1j2bc
 
with aircrafts ;D
 

Attachments

  • VX23F35CDDG1000A.jpg
    VX23F35CDDG1000A.jpg
    508.7 KB · Views: 497
  • CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. Oct.jpg
    CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. Oct.jpg
    552.9 KB · Views: 480
  • CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. Oct.jpg
    CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. Oct.jpg
    562.7 KB · Views: 453
  • CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. Oct.jpg
    CHESAPEAKE BAY, Md. Oct.jpg
    363.4 KB · Views: 436
marauder2048 said:
seruriermarshal said:
with aircrafts ;D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pics.

Does DDG-1000 have some means of actively suppressing wake?
Click to expand...

I should think it would have, otherwise there is little point on spending all those billions of dollars on making the ship stealthy to radar but failing to combat the old problem of the wake which would make the ship visible to the MK.1 eyeball.
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-warships-big-guns-have-no-bullets
 
I officially give up. How in God's name did they not even develop an unguided round as a fallback option.
 
Not surprising. They canceled the DDG program and with it all the expected production that would have been used to drive down the cost per round. Now with only 3 ships, the unit price is $800,000. It looks like they are hoping to leverage economies paid for by other guided projectiles and adapt them for use in the AGS gun.

From the article:
“We are looking at multiple different rounds for that gun,” the Navy official said, adding that “three or four different rounds” have been looked at, including the Army’s Excalibur munition from Raytheon, and the Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP), a project under development by the Office of Naval Research and BAE Systems.

“There are multiple companies that have looked at alternatives to get the cost down and use that delivery system,” the Navy official said.

Realistically, terminating a program financially tied to a cost basis which has been rendered defunct is necessary to clear the way to a real solution. The sunk cost needs to be written off so it isn’t factored into recurring costs in future production.
 
Problem is, doing a new program start now means those ships will be in the fleet for years with no main gun ammunition at all. That's fucking absurd.
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://blog.usni.org/2016/11/09/zumwalt-the-light-grey-elephant
Click to expand...

If you only have 3 ships using this gun and there are no plans on installing it on any other, and if the political origin for the gun (and ammunition) was land operations support fire, a senior level naval official might reasonably be thinking why bother? Missiles and aircraft can perform the land support role while the railgun continues to mature and eventually step in to replace the entire system. The DDG is purpose built to provide massive electrical power which can be readily used to operate the railgun. In an era of tight budgets, I would guess there will be significant internal debate on cost/benefit trades. An interim solution based on minimum cost which can provide adequate performance while waiting for a replacement technology would seem to offer a politically palatable compromise. I would suspect someone writing an official USNI blog might have access to senior managers who might be able to provide background on the rationale. However, that would actually require some real work.
 
The problem is there are no "minimal cost" alternatives here. Even "just" trying to shoehorn Excalibur into the AGS magazines is going to be a massive undertaking. You'll probably have to build something like a sabot to "pad out" the Excalibur round to match the shape of LRLAP, since the AGS ammo handling system apparently can't deal with any other shape. And you'll have to make a propellant charge that fills out the AGS chamber while not overloading the projectile (the AGS wants semi-fixed ammo, while the Army is using modular charges). Plus there's the question of whether Excalibur even meets Navy HERO and insensitive munition specs, whether it's compatible with a 100% unmanned loading cycle, etc.

And at the same time, the Navy is still spinning its wheels on any possible procurement of 127mm precision rounds. With limited money, why spend it on 6 tubes instead of 100?
 
TomS said:
Plus there's the question of whether Excalibur even meets Navy HERO and insensitive munition specs, whether it's compatible with a 100% unmanned loading cycle, etc.
Click to expand...

This is what drove a lot of LRLAP's cost particularly the conflicting requirements of slow/fast cookoff due to a thermal event while at the same time
remaining functional after ~ two hours in a hot gun barrel.

The guidance requirements accounted for ~ 40% (possibly slightly more) of the total cost.

All of which would have been tolerable once amortized across the quantities required for envisioned fleet of DD(X) and CG(X) shooters.
 
So, navalizing was a dominant cost?

The GPS was solved with Excaliber 155 shells, perhaps there could have been a saving there by not duplicating work.
 
DrRansom said:
So, navalizing was a dominant cost?

The GPS was solved with Excaliber 155 shells, perhaps there could have been a saving there by not duplicating work.
Click to expand...

The Navy has more exacting IM requirements than the Army but there was an effort early on to leverage GNC, ESAD, and HOB sensor work for Excalibur.
I don't know how much actual commonality and cost reduction was achieved. But the image below highlights some of the scale challenges.

I'm curious to see if the Army's XM1113 RAP round + PGK could be leveraged since it's the most IM compliant round developed by the Army to-date and
is designed to survive much higher muzzle velocities (~ 1200 m/s).
 

Attachments

  • arty-pgm.png
    arty-pgm.png
    261.3 KB · Views: 657
.

Does anyone know whether the two gun mounts and their magazines are "plug-in modules or whether they are an integral part of the ships' structure ?

IF they are plug-in modules PRESUMABLY other modules (whether missile or gun) could be substituted - an integral structural support framework would make things much more difficult.

.
 
They're not modular to the degree of a MEKO or Stanflex box. The magazine spaces are several decks down in the hull and there are probably non-gun spaces above them, around the ammo hoists.
 
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.
 
Moose said:
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.
Click to expand...

Can you post the literature for this? I recall seeing the AGS-Light proposal which was a replacement for the Mk45 on the Flight III Burkes that fired LRLAP.
 
Moose said:
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.
Click to expand...

The only thing I've seen on that front is the idea of saboting the 5-inch Hypervelocity Projectile to fit AGS. But that seems like a huge waste -- you get more range (70km from AGS vs 50 km from a Mk 45 Mod 4), but a 50% drop in RoF (10 rpm vs 20 rpm) and no increase in terminal effect, in exchange for a several-fold increase in size and cost of the launcher.

I should have seen the writing on the walls for AGS back in the very beginning of the DD-21 program, when the Navy seriously considered referring to AGS as a Trainable Rocket Launcher rather than a gun system. Once they started down that path, they really should have just gone with an actual rocket launcher. A reloadable MLRS would be more effective and easier to field than AGS.
 
marauder2048 said:
Moose said:
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.
Click to expand...

Can you post the literature for this? I recall seeing the AGS-Light proposal which was a replacement for the Mk45 on the Flight III Burkes that fired LRLAP.
Click to expand...
The Type 26 GCS' Mk45 will have ammunition handling system heavily based on that of the DDG-1000, adapted to fit the smaller ship and different rounds. I'm not sitting here and saying it's "simple" or trivial to do, but obviously the potential to make changes without going back to square one is there.

And here's the AGS Lite proposal from a few years ago.
 
TomS said:
Moose said:
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.
Click to expand...

The only thing I've seen on that front is the idea of saboting the 5-inch Hypervelocity Projectile to fit AGS. But that seems like a huge waste -- you get more range (70km from AGS vs 50 km from a Mk 45 Mod 4), but a 50% drop in RoF (10 rpm vs 20 rpm) and no increase in terminal effect, in exchange for a several-fold increase in size and cost of the launcher.

I should have seen the writing on the walls for AGS back in the very beginning of the DD-21 program, when the Navy seriously considered referring to AGS as a Trainable Rocket Launcher rather than a gun system. Once they started down that path, they really should have just gone with an actual rocket launcher. A reloadable MLRS would be more effective and easier to field than AGS.
Click to expand...
The navalized MLRS mount was considered pretty seriously as far back as the Arsenal Ship debate. I don't see the AGS-HVP as an ideal solution, rather as a decent enough bridge toward the full-EMRG HVP down the road rather than having to replace the guns "now" and either getting a railgun which isn't ready or another powder gun which will itself get pulled off the ships down the road. And this is me being optimistic about rails, the doomsayers still insist it's a debacle and we'll all wish the DDGs were armed with low-velocity 8" powder guns 20 years down the road. We'll see.
 
Moose said:
TomS said:
I should have seen the writing on the walls for AGS back in the very beginning of the DD-21 program, when the Navy seriously considered referring to AGS as a Trainable Rocket Launcher rather than a gun system. Once they started down that path, they really should have just gone with an actual rocket launcher. A reloadable MLRS would be more effective and easier to field than AGS.
Click to expand...
The navalized MLRS mount was considered pretty seriously as far back as the Arsenal Ship debate. I don't see the AGS-HVP as an ideal solution, rather as a decent enough bridge toward the full-EMRG HVP down the road rather than having to replace the guns "now" and either getting a railgun which isn't ready or another powder gun which will itself get pulled off the ships down the road. And this is me being optimistic about rails, the doomsayers still insist it's a debacle and we'll all wish the DDGs were armed with low-velocity 8" powder guns 20 years down the road. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ArShip was pretty contemporary with the beginnings of DD-21. IIRC, MLRS looked unattractive at the time because the rounds are big and were dominated by the submunition warhead, which was not ideal for direct fire support, the problem set the Marines were demanding a solution to. Fifteen years and a war in Afghanistan later, GMLRS-Unitary makes this a lot more attractive (though it still weights 3-4 times as much as an LRLAP round). OTOH, why design a dedicated naval MLRS launcher when POLAR (GMLRS with extended rocket motor) could be launched from almost any VLS cell?

The problem I have with HVP in any form (5-inch and AGS) is that it isn't actually a system, it's just a study project. AFAIK, all they've done so far are some ballistic test firings for gun compatibility and some terminal effects demonstrations. To actually turn the current project into a fieldable system, they have to revisit every single issue that cropped up in ERGM and LRLAP and solve them for the worst case situation in multiple guns, plus deal with whatever unique issues come up with heavy saboted rounds at Mach 3+. Sure, the fact that they've done most of it before helps, but it's still a minimum of several years to develop, even if they go sole-source. If they compete it, we're a decade away, at least.
 
In fairness, GMLRS (not "Plus", not POLAR) is still two years out from getting an IM compliant rocket motor so I can understand
the lukewarm response that LM got from the Navy. Then there's internal corporate dynamics with LRLAP at LM .
 
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/raytheon-excalibur-round-set-replace-lrlap-zumwalts
 
Guided-Missile Destroyer USS Zumwalt Arrives in San Diego

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/08/destroyer-uss-zumwalt-arrives-san-diego
 
seruriermarshal said:
Guided-Missile Destroyer USS Zumwalt Arrives in San Diego

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/08/destroyer-uss-zumwalt-arrives-san-diego
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE77A3rYH3I
 
bobbymike said:
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/21/interview-capt-james-kirk-uss-zumwalt
Click to expand...

The Change of Command ceremony: http://navaltoday.com/2016/12/21/captain-james-kirk-is-no-longer-the-commander-of-us-navys-super-stealth-destroyer/
 
The main potential problem I see with the LPD-17 hull design as a potential CG replacement is that they're about 10 knots too slow for what the USN wants from its surface combatants, which are expected to be able to keep up with a carrier battlegroup. I'm not sure what could be done about that without a major redesign, which would probably negate all the economic advantages.
Meanwhile the Zumwalt hull, while certainly not cheap, is already a 33 knot vessel with extra electrical power available for railguns and directed energy weapons. I imagine a CG (or dare I hope, CGN) version would probably also require more VLS cells than the 80 carried by the Zumwalts.
 
xmotex said:
The main potential problem I see with the LPD-17 hull design as a potential CG replacement is that they're about 10 knots too slow for what the USN wants from its surface combatants, which are expected to be able to keep up with a carrier battlegroup.
Click to expand...
The LPD-derived cruisers are discussed for the dedicated missile defence role, which is currently filled by (on paper) 2 Aegis ships as BMD shooters and one as an AAW escort. The LPD-17 based 'CG' would cover this mission, but the task force escort requirement would be filled by something else. Probably DDG-51 Flight XLXVI at this point.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom